Does the coronavirus merit investment, or personal, concern or consideration?

Better yet, start requiring IQ tests, and just wait and see what the demographics are of those who pass… that was the whole point of Griggs - that unrelated requirements not necessary for a specific job’s tasks couldn’t be imposed.

If you’d like to roll that back, I’m sure lots of companies would be happy to give IQ tests instead of paying up for college grads as a half way decent proxy for being kinda smart. It would be better for a lot of employees too, who could get a job without paying a ton for college if they could just show they were smart enough to be worth a shot to hire. But some demographics just don’t do well on tests, so we’re all stuck with this dumbed down college system.

3 Likes

I was hoping this discussion would take place under my post in the other thread, but here is fine too.

In the real world, you guys are both right. The EEOC so far has said that employers can require vaccinations, but several (red) states are considering laws that prohibit that, which would supercede EEOC interpretation. Then, of course, there will be lawsuits. I think most lower court and appellate courts would rule in favor of employers, but the supreme court would probably strike a balance, permitting some employers (like hospitals and nursing homes) to require it and prohibiting others. But by the time it gets that far and gets ironed out, if you’re living in a blue state, you’ve probably already got your shot so you can keep working. If you’re in a red state working for a leftist employer (like the Commissioner of Revenue that I pointed out in my thread) and you don’t want to get vaxxed, you better hope your state legislature bails you out, and fast.

2 Likes

“Trust the Science”, the academic journal edition.

Political considerations at the scientific journals publishing academic articles on covid served to promote the natural origin and suppress the possibility of a lab evolved / man made one. They speculate on China’s monetary influence on the finances of the journal publishers, many of whom are somewhat marginal.

This went as far as not just rejecting papers that claimed the lab possibility, but also rejecting or submitting to extensive scrutiny and delays ones that detracted from the broader natural origin narrative, such as those showing covid infected human cells more readily than all the other animals they tested (suggesting a lab origin evolved in human cell culture, rather than a cross species jump) or research suggesting the proposed intermediate hosts (pangolins) were unlikely.

This is similar to the experience of Dr Kory / FLCCC with their ivermectin paper, which was accepted and passed peer review, but then was, in an incredibly rare occurrence, retracted by the journal before publication for political reasons by the journal editors. It was subsequently published elsewhere.

The editors emphasize that the papers at the center of the disagreement [covid / ivermectin] had passed peer review. “The scientific process requires fair, open, and transparent peer review to proceed effectively and efficiently—particularly at this time and for this topic,” the editors write in their statement, which was sent to Frontiers staff and to authors of papers in the special issue yesterday (April 27). “The actions of ‘Frontiers’ in this matter clearly violate well established norms and processes for peer review and publication of scientific works and intellectual contributions.”

Here is an interview with Nicholas Wade, the long time NYT science writer , whose recent article posted previously on the possible lab leak hypothesis seems to have gotten the US to consider it seriously. They discuss the evidence for both sides and Nicolas concludes he finds the lab the more plausible at this point

https://unherd.com/thepost/nicholas-wade-the-case-for-the-covid-lab-leak-theory/ (30min video, seemed fine at 1.75x speed)

The hospital employee lawsuit was dismissed, appeal planned.

1 Like

Not surprised the lower court judge didn’t want to deal with the case. Probably makes sense because an appeal was going to happen regardless.

1 Like

I dont like the argument about being forced to participate in a clinical trial. I agree with it in principle, but general consensus is that approval of the vaccines will come regardless - meaning that argument has a pretty limited relevancy regardless.

My argument would focus on the vaccine being necessary to perform the job. Because it is not; ignoring that in most cases there is no acute danger to being with, the vaccine does not make it any safer for the employees nor the patients compared to other non-vaccine based criteria.

1 Like

I think you’ll see that argument from other employees (maybe the ones at the commissioner of revenue i linked to), but I think the employees’ lawyers in this case are advising them (well) that since they work at a hospital, it is unlikely that argument will fly in their case.

I dont think the setting matters for this argument. People without the vaccine can be as “protected” as anyone with the vaccine, and people with the vaccine can be as much of a risk as anyone without the vaccine. There is additional criteria, both prior to being vacinated and after being vaccinated, that must be met for the vaccine to have a material effect on one’s safety.

Novavax efficiency at ~90%:

1 Like

NVAX - good news, and similarly against the variants too, at least the UK one which was definitely around when they were testing.

Guess I should have held my NVAX long, but BNTX (betting on PFE vaccine) has been doing very well.

TX hospitalizations on the way up again. Thanks Abbott and other domestic terrorists spreading anti-vaxx lies and disinformation.

How have they been so successful at spreading their disinformation in MA,CO,NJ,PA,CA,MD,OH AND IL, all of which are more left leaning than TX and also have fewer reported covid variants currently?

They don’t seem to be a hot spot for overall new cases either, compared to the rest of the country.

1 Like

Does this map look familiar? Maybe to a map from… I don’t know… December of last year?

Sure. That happens when you shut down testing in the state(s). And you can obviously more easily create a downtrend week over week when you start at an astronomically high number… week over week case numbers trends per state in case numbers has a very marginal informational value.
Hospitalization rates can also be faked down if testing is restricted, but is otherwise less open to manipulation.

Try arguing that in court where the general consensus is that people visiting hospitals are often immunocompromised and can’t get vaccinated and are safer with only vaccinated people around them. Whether that is 100% true or not, it’s likely what a judge or jury would believe if presented with it as fact.

2 Likes

How have they shut down testing? Are CVS, Walgreens , and every doctor’s office in Texas prohibited by law from conducting COVID tests?

A good article on translating CCP to English, the Wuhan edition.


https://archive.is/3ORi6

Many years ago a distinguished Chinese writer, Wu Zuxiang, explained to me that there is truth in Communist Party pronouncements, but you have to read them “upside down.” If a newspaper says “the Party has made great strides against corruption in Henan,” then you know that corruption has recently been especially bad in Henan.

Borrowing Wu Zuxiang’s technique of reading “upside down,” what the Fang Fang campaign tells us is that Xi Jinping is extremely worried that the world will hold his regime responsible for the pandemic. The most radioactive question has been where the virus originated.

I will need considerable persuading that the disease came from bats or a wet market. The linguistic evidence is overwhelming that Chinese leaders believe the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the source.

2 Likes

Here are the bats they denied were being kept in the Wuhan lab. Old video found talking up the labs prospects several years ago makes it clear recent Chinese and conflicted US virologists have been lying to us to cover up evidence that points towards the lab leak possibility.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology kept live bats in cages, new footage from inside the facility has revealed, disproving denials from World Health Organisation investigators who claimed the suggestion was a “conspiracy”.

An official Chinese Academy of Sciences video to mark the launch of the new biosafety level 4 laboratory in May 2017 speaks about the security precautions that are in place if “an accident” occurs and reveals there had been “intense clashes” with the French Government during the construction of the laboratory.

The video shows bats being held in a cage at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, along with vision of a scientist feeding a bat with a worm. The 10 minute video is titled “The construction and research team of Wuhan P4 laboratory of Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences” and features interviews with its leading scientists.

The World Health Organisation report investigating the origin of the pandemic failed to mention that any bats had been kept at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and only its annex referred to animals being housed there. “The animal room in the P4 facility can handle a variety of species, including primate work with SARS-CoV-2,” it states.

A member of the World Health Organisation team investigating the origin of the pandemic in Wuhan, zoologist Peter Daszak said it was a conspiracy to suggest bats were held at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In one tweet dated December, 2020 he said: “No BATS were sent to Wuhan lab for genetic analysis of viruses collected in the field. That’s now how this science works. We collect bat samples, send them to the lab. We RELEASE bats where we catch them!” In another tweet, dated December 11, 2020, he said: “This is a widely circulated conspiracy theory. This piece describes work I’m the lead on and labs I’ve collaborated with for 15 years. They DO NOT have live or dead bats in them. There is no evidence anywhere that this happened. It’s an error I hope will be corrected.”

This month, Daszak appeared to retract his earlier denials and admitted the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have housed bats but admitted he had not asked them.

Hard hitting investigation by the WHO team, hand picked by China for their aligned interests.

1 Like

Powerful stuff, xerty.

That is akin to the Fauci statement, from years ago, that I posted earlier . . . . . back where I posted that the “internet never forgets”.

The evidence to prove what happened, to nail down origins, is likely already out there. We may not need the cooperation of the Chinese Communist Party . . . . which is hardly likely to materialize within this century anyway.

Ivermectin blog comments

To figure out if a source is reliable, a quick shortcut is to figure out if that source addresses all of the randomized controlled trials performed so far or if they focus on selective evidence that supports their position. For example, the GAVI vaccine alliance uses Google Adwords to promote misleading information about ivermectin. They cherry pick the Medina-Lopez et al. study because those researchers concluded that their evidence did not support ivermectin use. If you read the study, you will see that the data actually leans towards ivermectin use. Nobody died in the ivermectin group while 1 person died in the control group. The primary endpoint also would have favoured ivermectin use but the researchers decided to move the goalposts around by changing endpoints midway. 174 doctors have signed a letter calling for the study paper to be retracted due to its unsupported conclusion.